Thursday, September 06, 2007
This is my first blog, and I've been using it since before the blogging craze caught on here. Sadly, Blogger seems to have few of the features I want for my blog, while Wordpress seems to offer more.
I think I'll keep Novus War Journal V.2 here in Blogger, since the setup for this blogging provider is better for that kind of blog, the one that might eventually have graphics and all.
But, in order to ensure something like with the last post doesn't happen, without me instituting security measures I abhor, I'm transferring Phoenix Eyrie to Wordpress.
I'm deactivating all comment capability here. The whole blog has been transfered there, so all comments should be made at Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded.
Friday, August 31, 2007
On the post regarding Migz Zubiri and his redemption via politics, John Nery reiterates his position (as opposed to Manolo's) that Migz can never be able to redeem himself because of the context in which the Gentleman from Bukidnon got elected, and most especially given Migz recent filing of a counter-petition vs. rival Koko Pimentel at the Senate Electoral Tribunal. According to Nery, the move was designed to turn the Tribunal into the electoral equivalent of the Energizer Bunny in that it will just go on, and on, and on, putting Koko's supposedly righteous pursuit of his case into electoral limbo.
I will not contest John Nery's analysis of Migz' actions; whatever the reasons of the Gentleman from Bukidnon for filing a case, that's his problem and, lest the pundits and public forget, he is certainly entitled to it, just like everyone else. Nowhere it is said that someone the public perceives as one of Gloria's boys is denied his constitutional rights, just because he happens to be in the little girl's camp.
But, see, that's my longstanding issue with the anti-Gloria crowd: they're such aces in the practice of selective morality.
I will repeat myself: what is so wrong with Zubiri filing a case with the SET? Isn't he entitled to do so?
Seeing the comments all over the post, I decided to add my two cents worth by posting what I called a "Point of Information": if Zubiri should be denied a Senate seat for cheating, or Escudero impeached for betraying the ideals of the Opposition... then shouldn't someone who threatened to blow up buildings and people be all the more denied that privilege, regardless of how many... misguided people voted for him?
I mean, look at it. How can people even go to the lengths of actively advocating for Trillianes to sit in the Senate while denying a (supposed) cheater and an alleged betrayer the same things? Which one is the greater sin to the Republic? Heck, which one has proof?
That's why I was just so incensed at de Quiros when he lambasted the judge who denied Trillianes his supposed right. In case he and other anti-GMA pundits have forgotten, there were LIVE FEEDS of the Oakwood Mutiny. Their bloody friggin' hero himself read the bloody friggin' demands, and what would happen if those weren't met.
And that's why I am just so... irritated at a public that would call for the ouster of an alleged cheat, while putting into office a confirmed terrorist. The same public that elected a non-performing, human rights-abusing person to City Hall on the basis of his closest rival being the son of the man who was a solid supporter of the alleged cheat. Never mind if the Atienzas were largely responsible for reviving the moribund capital into a shining city once again. I mean, get rid of your anti-Gloria lens and look at what Manila was in the last nine years.
Don't you think there's just something wrong with this picture?
If people have the gall to demand morality and ethics from its leadership, then this should be a blanket demand, not a flavor-of-the-month, apple-of-the-eye thing. If you're going to apply strict standards against the little girl, than do so for that terrorist. If you're going to take the AFP to task for the alleged abductions of political activists, then do the same for the CPP-NPA for its well documented torching of cell sites and industrial centers, as well as its owning up to the killings of Lagman, Kintanar and that other RJ leader.
Bakit kayo namimili? Para naman tayong nag-gagaguhan nito eh.
And people wonder why our Public Sphere is such a mess?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
It's not actually as... negative as it sounds, since we're talking about moral relativism here: for them, everything was justifiable if it advanced Joma's revolution. Nothing was exactly "wrong" for them if it advanced their agenda. We Catholic SC leaders just happened to operate under a different set of rules.
But then, that's where the problem arises.
Henry Kissinger's book, Diplomacy, is truly teaching me a lot. True, I already knew that there was a high level of relativism in the realm of political action, but its fascinating to see it happen on the level of historical figures. Because, this way, it drives the point home: the person you are negotiating with in good faith might not be dealing with you in the same terms.
Take for example all those concessions and negotiations with the North Vietnamese. The Americans - as portrayed by Kissinger - were giving so many concessions on the basis of building a level of confidence between them and the communists. The Americans were acting and negotiating on the basis of resolving an issue not only through force of arms, but through the redress of what to them are the outstanding issues of the Vietnam War.
But as Kissinger pointed out, the North Vietnamese were operating on the premise that nothing short of conquest of the South, the imposition of communism throughout the whole of Vietnam, was the goal. There would be no compromise, no peace, no concession. As Kissinger said, Hanoi was happy to pocket everything that Washington gave, but never gave back. That the United States continued this line of engagement for four Presidents astounds me.
This is but one illustration on how important it is to know the context of the person(s) your dealing with. Some say that the reason why Gandhi's style of revolution worked was that he was dealing with the British and their long tradition of liberal democracy; Imperialists as they British were, they do regard themselves as democratic, God-fearing creatures. It is a very interesting thought experiment to substitute, say, the Nazis to the equation and see how even a non-violent protest fares against history's worst authoritarians.
I saw on the banner of PDI that the AFP is considering a long ceasefire - three years! - with the CPP. Given this, I am seriously thinking of sending the Chief of Staff and his Commander-in-Chief a copy of Kissinger's Diplomacy so that they remember context, and who it is their dealing with.
Peace talks are wonderful things, I would concede. Woodrow Wilson's ideals for a peace that allows even the defeated to keep a large measure of dignity is a very ideal outcome. But, again, this is falling into the trap of regarding one's antagonists as beings who think the same way as you do. They don't. There is a world of difference between a communist, especially one who has gone up a mountain, and a liberal democrat. The value systems are just too different to reconcile, especially since the former is all-too-willing to kill you if you won't agree to their ideology.
Again, I'm not saying peace talks shouldn't be pursued; they should, in fact. All I'm saying is that there's a danger to thinking that people who have pursued an ideological rebellion for nearly four decades, who were not above culling their own ranks in order to maintain ideological purity, would suddenly begin thinking the same way as we do.
There must be no illusions here: the CPP-NPA-NDF has as its goal the supplanting of all our liberal democratic traditions and institutions with the monochromatic systems and beliefs of communism. The communists have said time and again that they are willing to do everything - everything! - to see this goal achieved.
The AFP and our national leaders must never forget this fact, even if our civil society leaders seem to have done so.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Consider the Message and the Messenger. By October of 2000, Erap had managed to stave off one challenge after another. True, the Inquirer had also defied his pressure over it, after a successful campaign against the Manila Times, but it was like a Dunkirk or a Battle of Britain amidst the fall of the whole Western Front in World War II. It was like the Filipino public, although turning up an eyebrow over the... shenanigans of the Chief Executive, done so brazenly in public, was willing to live and let live.
Even at the start of his "I accuse" speech at the Senate, Guingona had waded into dangerous waters. He was up against a President whose mandate was the biggest in history, had an extremely loyal following amongst the masses, and possessed a powerful majority in both chambers of Congress. Like I tell people, it was just not popular in October 2000 to go up against Erap.
But Guingona did. Almost all by his lonesome.
That the Messenger of the corruption of Erap would say something like, “He is a man who has found a new light and a new life. In his own private self, I think he has found the answer; he has new values and he is now a new man,” lends to me a certain sense of the... surreal to this seemingly final chapter of a fight that started almost seven years ago.
Why this kind of a statement from someone whose only selling point has been his moral ascendancy over other politicians? Guingona had pitted himself against the woman he helped propel into the Presidency first out of differences in foreign policy principles and later on for other things. He had gone against the Erap juggernaut, plunged the country into seven years of unrelenting, unforgiving political warfare, because, supposedly, the casus belli was about truth, justice and the restoration of nobility in public office.
Filipinos are a forgiving lot; its partly in the nature, partly in the more than three centuries of Catholicism. We are quick to anger, quick to retaliate when our pride gets pricked, but a handshake and a round of drinks later we're all good buddies once again.
If the issue was simply about the values of one man, then perhaps the statement by Guingona wouldn't sound so... absurd. Erap, per se, was never the issue (at least for me and many of my colleagues in the UCSC and KALIPI). Oh, sure, in principle the student councils of the Catholic schools should have protested - as we were already doing for some time - his wanton disregard, in public no less, of the traditional values of our Christian faith. We were outraged at his penchant for booze and gambling, even as he was already the President of the Republic. But these... sins are all subject to change, if we profess ourselves as Christian, and most certainly eligible for penance if the person has shown sufficient proof of a change of heart, what might be called a genuine desire to turn away from sin.
But the issue, in case anti-Gloria forces forget, isn't about whether Erap has "found a new light and a new life." We went to the streets from October 2000 to January 2001 because we believed that our own President had so dirtied the highest office of the land that he had to go or the Philippines will. We fought against his massed thousands on May 2001 because we believed it was a brazen attempt to use the masses to bring him back to power. Goddamit, some of my people in the UCSC almost died that morning! The radical Left had seemingly disappeared as the tide of humanity closed in on Mendiola, leaving the Catholic schools to hold the line. We fought and bled for this "post-Erap" world, all because we were made to believe by our LightForsaken elders that this was the right thing to do and that the man - Erap - was guilty to the bone.
And now Guingona has the gall to tell people that Erap should go under the premises that (a) he's a changed man, and (b) Malacañang is pressuring the Sandiganbayan to rule guilty?
I'm sorry but... what the hell is wrong with him?
Guingona says further: “And so I say, let us give justice to Erap now that he is down. I hope the court will acquit him. Let freedom be for Erap.”
Okay. Give justice to Erap now that he is down. Uh-huh. But, Mr. Guingona, do you remember the stuff you said in that speech of yours nearly seven years ago? Those were no simple accusations: to claim that the President of the Republic was no less than the leading protector of an illegal numbers game is a serious challenge not only to Erap himself but to the persona of the Office he held. I mean, we knew the man to be ammoral at the very least. But to have actual proof that he was using his Presidency to illegally acquire wealth and power?
For that speech, Teofisto Guingona began what would be a vicious, uncompromising, no-holds-barred level of political warfare in this country. The move to oust Gloria, and the viciousness in it, can be traced all the way to that day Guingona gave his "I accuse" speech because it simply meant that the old rules were out of the window. Seven months and one ouster later, the political opponents of the new regime - Erap's supporters - would heartlessly throw thousands of poor people against the might of the State. In the two elections that followed, political warfare would alternate from the subtle to the obvious, but it was always high-intensity, culminating in the latest episode of the whole war, this time with Gloria on the defensive and Erap on the offensive.
I've been reading Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy. It's a fascinating read, to be sure, but for someone like me who considers himself a student of history, its quite a treat to hear from a person so in to the events that shaped the last half of the previous century what went into the decision-making processes of leaders in those events. It was quite interesting to find out that, had Churchill not been alone in demanding the Western democracies stand forcefully against the Soviets as the Iron Curtain was dropping down on Eastern Europe... the Cold War might have been over rather quickly. Or that if the fear of another Great War had made Great Britain and France issue a sterner challenge to Hitler early on, the Second World War might have been averted.
Perhaps the most fascinating to read in the book is how leaders measure the costs and benefits of going into a conflict. According to Kissinger, warfare was, quite truly, as much an instrument of a nation's foreign policy in the old, pre-World War I days. Negotiations were made in order to prevent war, and a nation would emphasize its demands with the rattle of a saber. In fact, it was precisely this kind of... threat behavior that allowed Stalin and Khrushchev to stall the West, even if the United States alone had superiority in both its conventional and nuclear arsenal that early in the Cold War. It was only after the horrors of the First World War that nations started, uh... negotiating first, even to the point where it was absurd, just so they could avoid conflict.
I would like to believe, seven years after the fact, that we overturned the existing order on the streets of EDSA and on other places nationwide, on the basis of a change infinitely being better than allowing the status quo to go on. It was more a battle begun on the premise of change than anything else. The young had rediscovered the fire of activism, and there was a very, very, very big dragon to slay. We were fed by our elders in civil society the thinking that Erap, even before he began his Presidency, was unfit to be the country's Chief Executive.
But the dragon that was Erap, and all he represented, were protected by a subservient Congress and a million plus votes from the country's disenfranchised that saw in the gambling, womanizing, mostly-drunk former moviestar their hero and savior. There were many reasons to go to war with Erap, but where do you get the proper, outrage-inducing justification to challenge the guy when it seemed like issues of morality weren't sufficient?
But suddenly, on October 2000, Teofisto Guingona gave us the casus belli.
It was a long fight, to be sure. The economy suffered like no other, and we were even lambasted in the foreign press for using extra-constitutional measures yet again to solve the country's political issues. But we reasoned that he issue, as Teofisto Guingona laid out in his "I accuse" speech, were so fundamental that there was very little room for institutional remedies, and that the one available option had been so brazenly denied, with matching jig from one of Erap's supporters as taunt to civil society that the impeachment was dead and gone.
How would we, the young men and women who acted as the shock troops and "mid-level officers" of that movement, know that it was all just the start of a long, protracted political war, one in which the old rules of engagement were gone? How many of my colleagues among the "moderate" youth leaders have abandoned the cause out of attrition and disillusionment? What is the cost of this war, truly? Do our elders realize yet that one of its biggest costs is a generation of disillusioned, cynical young people who are now rearing their own families? What will we teach our children and what world will we give them when, because of the caprice of our elders, even we with our immense powers and clout cannot bring order to the chaos they have wrought?
Because caprice it would seem with Guingona's statement. You go to war, bear its costs, for reasons that justify those costs. Guingona's statement tells us that the reasons for starting a still-ongoing vicious political war was meaningless. If he, the Messenger of juetengate, could so easily call for Erap's release under the inane pretexts of the man having "changed" and because of pressure from the Administration, then what the hell did we fight for? What the hell did we sacrifice for? Is he telling us that Erap's sins to the Republic are so light that they can be washed away so easily by a (seemingly) contrite heart? So what if the Admin is pressuring the Sandiganbayan for a guilty verdict; wasn't Erap guilty, anyway, based on his (Guingona's) "I accuse" speech all those years ago?
I am telling you right now: if the country is a mess it's NOT because of Gloria. Okay, not just. It's the whole friggin' lot of them. Only elders like the ones we have right now, who can so easily change their minds and even HEARTS based on their current pet peeve, could plunge the country into one conflict after another, damn the costs. I am seriously doubting their commitment and desire for a better Philippines since it would appear, with all their inconsistencies, that its all about the Agenda - their Agenda - and not what is truly best for the country.
And most certainly its not about truth, nor justice. The former, I saw for myself how easily they dismissed it, from the paragons themselves of the once-mighty Liberal Party itself, beginning that morning of 8 July 2005 up until today. The latter, well... you have Tito Guingona to thank for the trivialization of justice. It was he who laid down the facts for Erap's crime. And now he trivializes all our struggles, the reasons for the protracted, no-holds-barred, 7-years-and-going-strong political war we are all in, because Gloria's the evil lord now and Erap's such a poor, poor victim of that evil little girl in the Palace.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Perhaps because the above are... far too "tactile" for me right now. "Tactile" as in "dama"; they are issues far too close to my Soul that my BP goes up at the slightest thought in that direction. Well, except for the extra-judicial killing part. I've always said that people who take up arms against the State lost the right to complain about rights and the protection of any law the minute they made that choice to rebel. Besides, why is no one taking the NPA to task for its massacres and salvage operations?
Let me state it now that I find it galling for Media to complain about libel laws, and that its somehow rather obscene for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the country's leading newspaper, to call that as "antiquated." What, has the Philippine Press, of all those in the world, suddenly found its sense of responsibility and maturity that no safeguards are necessary to curb their excess?
I remember the thoughts and feelings I brought to Gummersbach more than four years ago when I met journalists and other media practitioners from other parts of the globe. Nearly all of them were complaining at the lack of freedom for their country's respective press. I, on the other hand, came there telling them that my country's problem is that we too much freedom for our media, and that any attempt to put restraints, no matter how logical, always end up with Media coming down hard on the poor twit who broached the idea.
When Dax Manacsa first introduced the slander and libel provisions in the Revised Penal Code to us all those years ago in PolSci 101, what immediately caught my attention was the term in the provisions that said libel and slander could be charged on somebody regardless of whether the statement under question was true or not. To the law, it didn't matter whether what you wrote or said about the person is true or not; it was the intent of the act that mattered. If one's verbal or written statement directed at another had the intent to harm that person's honor and dignity in public, it becomes slander or libel.
Media is claiming that libel is an abridgment of the constitutional guarantee to Freedom of the Press, along with that for expression and speech. It is presented as some sort of sword of Damocles, a threat to every journalist that they should tone the language and criticism lest they get slapped silly with libel cases, with their attendant demand for the payment of damages, often in ludicrous amounts of money.
But in my mind, this option is the one thing that actually protects the Philippine public from a rapacious Fourth Estate. And rapacious it is, as well as irresponsible and lacking sorely of the objectivity required of true journalism.
If Doreen Fernandez' statement to us Comm. Sophies in journ class holds true, than what media organization can claim moral ascendancy enough to say that, yes, it does give reportage that is responsible, factual and above reproach? Because even the PDI And PCIJ are guilty of slanting news reports and in-depth analysis.
To be fair, there is a certain standard on when you file libel, especially against agents of the Fourth Estate. An expose can be done with it being so factual and thoroughly done that there is no hint of malice involved in the reportage. The presentation of information on the shenanigans of a person should be enough indictment, as we must believe that society's public facade has a shared set of values that punishes certain... deviancy in behavior (like too much corruption, say).
But the media Philippines has been so stuck in the presentation of data as sensational as possible that its almost obscene. For example, who do you know really likes Mike Arroyo? The guy is, perhaps, the symbol for all that is wrong in Philippine politics. Yet, if you closely at all the reportage done on him, particularly the Jose Pidal thing, is there, really (anti-GMA sentiment aside), any solid evidence of his corruption?
All media presented, again and again, were the stuff their darlings were spoonfeeding the various press corps and reporters. I know of no single media organization that did the nitty-gritty of actually doing an in-depth investigation on whether or not there was actual merit on the accusations of the First Gentleman having spirited away more public money than all the corrupt leaders from Ferdinand Marcos to Jose Velarde. And when Ping Lacson went into that thing on Arroyo's supposed mistress, to me that was just too much. It was like vaudeville.
Or what about stuff, say, Billy Esposo and Conrado de Quiros writes? There is that argument that democracy allows you - in fact, encourages you - to engage such vitriolic and biased writers in public debate. The clashing of opinions is the bedrock of democracy, the key to its survivability and dynamism.
Yet there must be at least a fair level of parity between contestants in order for this to work. But how do you challenge the likes of Esposo and de Quiros? How do you question a post over at PCIJ made by Alecks Palabrico, or those made by Manolo Quezon in his various blogs? I've seen PDI post "opposition" (meaning, pro-Admin) Letters to the Editor that actually enhanced the criticized writer's position because the L2E writer was made to look stupid. Or they printed a L2E that was stupid in the first place. I've seen PCIJ not ask the other side of a story.
We must remove from the discussion the pretensions of morality that we have so long adopted. If only media were as truly moral as it PRs itself to be, then perhaps there is basis in demanding for the rescinding of libel from our laws. But the truth of the matter is our media has been so drunk in the immense level of freedom given it by the post-Marcos milieu that it refuses to acknowledge that it has done much harm in its claim of the public needing to know.
Reporters ask for money and/or favors, and Editors can and do keep certain information from coming out. Columnists - the vanguard of the so-called "punditocracy" - can say anything and everything they want regardless of fact or propriety. There are tricks in the trade that allow us to make you look and sound the way we want whether on print or on screen.
Media has such immense powers it can be so overbearing at times. As the self-appointed guardian of democracy and the public - they need to know, after all! - Media has forgotten that every right has a corresponding responsibility. Just as freedom of expression, speech, religion and the press are bedrocks of democracy, so too is the demand of democracy from its adherents that there must be responsibility in the exercise of these rights.
What power does a single human being have against that of the monolith that is the Fourth Estate? Media can display all your dirty, disgusting laundry to all 80 million Filipinos and then some, since new media allows you to reach farther than ever before, and in real time too. All in the spirit of democracy and the "right" of the people to know.
Given such a power, what recourse does an individual, no matter how highly placed in government or society, has if the libel laws are rescinded?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
From what I can glean from stuff going around post-elections, many of the Republic's citizens voted not along GO or TU lines, but rather on a criterion that included the perception that this person will do his/her job in the Senate as well as their track record of service. I guess it really just so happened that many of the candidates who could claim such were in GO, partly because of the successful media-created perception that any candidate under the Administration is there simply to keep Gloria in power.
Besides, it really DID look as if TU had a trapo lineup, didn't it? Its hard to sell something that doesn't look good, and Reli German's campaign style wasn't able to get past the perceptions. I was there during their kickoff and my thoughts as the 12 TU Senatoriables were presented was, well...
It's the "hardliner" comments, though, that astound me. People who claim to have voted straight GO say they did so on the basis of a rejection of corruption and all the evils of politics. For me, this best illustrates a phenomenon in the Philippine political sphere that has caught my attention since July 8: selective morality.
I find it astounding that people, and especially the so-called leaders of the equally so-called Civil Society , could claim that their GO votes were based on the principles of morality and "good politics", of reform-oriented politics. It clearly shows how much people would go to just to give their actions a veneer of justification.
Take Trillianes for example. I saw some of the posts in one of the Inquirer blogs, and due to outrage I just HAD to post in response to them. People so quickly forget that Trillianes acted not like the hero they say he is but like some common bandit or terrorist by rigging explosives around Oakwood and essentially holding a lot of people hostage, all to demand reforms from the AFP and make Gloria step down.
There is nothing that could ever justify these kinds of acts in a democratic country from its own military. If his grievances were legitimate, there were several dozen avenues for him to take. He could have taken it to the JAG. He could have gone to Opposition members of the House and Senate Committees on National Defense, especially in the Senate since a former AFP Chief of Staff in Pong Biazon is there. And if all avenues within the system of the AFP and government fails, then he should have resigned his commission out of disgust and went to town; the media would have made him their darling with such juicy accusations, and him being oh-so-pretty and all.
But more than a million people still voted for a clear-as-day rebel. I told them, so now we're telling our kids its ok to resort to such extreme measures just to air our grievances? That one can break the law and not only get away with it but be rewarded handsomely as well? If it was a statement against Gloria, then there were better ways to make one than legitimize rebellion, lawlessness, violence and a disdain for our Constitution.
Or what about the likes of Allan Peter Cayetano and Koko Pimentel? How can such upstanding gentlemen do something so crass as running for the Senate when they have 1st-degree relatives there?
Okay, maybe it should have been expected of Cayetano. Like with Raul Roco, I never saw the guy as the paragon media made him to be. You can see if someone is taking stands because they genuinely believe in what they're fighting for and someone who's doing it simply for something else. I'm not saying Cayetano doesn't exactly believe in the causes he purportedly espouse. But if he's such a law-abiding, exemplary citizen of the Republic, he should have adamantly said no to running for the Senate while sister Pia is there. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, you see.
As for Koko doing the same... I knew the man, back when he was one of my bosses in the National Youth Commission, being Commissioner for Mindanao. In a sense, he reminded me of Mar: smart, well-educated, comes from a well-known and respected family, comes across as more academic than bureaucrat. Essentially, he was someone who you expected to do the right thing, given his credentials and background.
So I just couldn't understand whatever the hell possessed Koko to run while his sainted father still held a Senate seat. Or, come to think of it, why Nene Pimentel would give his imprimatur to such a move. No matter how you spin it, such a move as that of Koko and Cayetano reeks of "dynasticism." Although there is no law written to enforce it, our Constitution I think was clear about this issue. If families holding onto elective key positions in a whole province is a travesty of democracy already, then two persons of first-degree consanguinity sitting in the Senate is something like spitting on democracy's eye.
And people have the gall to justify their votes given these realities?
Make no mistake: I am actually impressed at the gains responsible politics has made this last elections. Grace Padaca managed to still beat the Dys in Isabela. A priest managed to beat the Pinedas and Lapids in Pampanga. Mayor Jesse is still Naga City's mayor. These and others nationwide show that the Filipino electorate is slowly realizing its stakeholdership.
But perhaps the biggest threat to the emerging maturity of the Filipino voter is media itself. If one can dispense even for a while his/her knee-jerk disdain for the little girl in the Palace, you would notice that media has not been all that responsible in its coverage. There is already a pre-set bias versus Administration bets. There is the presentation that any Opposition bet that wins is for good governance, and that no Admin bet could win if the fight were fair.
One of our pol ops here in the HQ pointed out the question of Maguindanao and the 12-0 for the TU that happened there. Although shocking, he had a point when he said it was possible. In the first place, not everyone subscribes to the views and opinions of Imperial Manila. It is remotely possible that, somewhere, somehow, people just don't like the GO. That they'd rather have peace and stability and whatever little progress there is.
Actually, the question is: if the GO managed to blank the TU anywhere, would Media bring it to the public's scrutiny with the same suspicions as when the TU did it in Maguindanao?
No. Because our media organizations have switched from being Informers to Agenda Setters, to Strategic Constituents aware of their power to influence the public's positions and opinions.
Our media orgs have forgotten that their sacred duty as society's Fourth Estate is to allow people in a democracy to make decisions, on their own, based on as complete a set of data as possible in a given issue. Both sides must get equitable airtime and print space. Remarks from facilitators and hosts must be unbiased.
Even the vaunted PCIJ has fallen into the StratCon trap, perhaps due to the acknowledgement of its blog as one of the key sources of information by the online public on any issue. PCIJ has been relentless in its questioning of officials and in the presentation of condemnations by groups - regardless of how small it is or irrelevant - of Admin bets. But did PCIJ even once make a post questioning Cayetano and Pimentel? Was there a "reflection" piece on the implications of a Trillianes victory in the polls? And what about the fact that people who were adamant to see Erap go and get convicted were all smiles and filled with pride as the former President raised their hands during their "proclamation" at Tanay?
This, sadly, is the milieu post-Garci. Our political landscape is a moral desolation. It seems as if the Communist ideal of "everything for the revolution" has dominated even those who supposedly lead us in reforming the whole system. And many of us blindly follow them because of "pedigree politics," where actions, no matter how contrary to the values and principles we believed in, are justified or at least unquestioned because of the person espousing the cause.
The Drilon wing is recognized by people, especially civil society, simply because the "names" of the LP are there. No one even questioned whether the acts done from July 8 onwards are liberal and democratic in nature, simply because the likes of the Abads, the Acostas, the Aquinos and the Tañadas are there. Every action of theirs is mantled in purity and justification because of pedigree even if it has become quite despicable already. I bet no one asked Noynoy how he could make democracy as the cornerstone of his campaign when he himself has denied the LP the surcease from its suffering that adherence to the democratic process would have given.
But that's how it is now, I guess. Its hard to look deeper into the dynamics of an issue, its context, to get a clearer picture of what really is happening. Most people would rather depend on "known variables", like an advocate's pedigree, to help them determine what is right or wrong, who is good or evil.
Which only shows that a little bit more maturity is needed by the public. They must learn to ask the hard questions, even to those considered as heroes. Back then, pedigree counted for something because you never expected your paragons to do anything that would severely compromise of contradict the ideals they embody.
But after showing that even they could sacrifice the truth and democracy even if their backs weren't to the wall, and do so for so long that I think they themselves believe their own propaganda now, then we should be worried. Who watches the watchmen? Who will bring them to task?
In the pre-21st century Ateneo, it is said that you would know an upperclassmen if he scoffs at any intensive praise of Rizal. It is not about disrespect to the national hero - who is our schoolmate, after all - but about context and backgrounds. Ateneans at Junior year are presented not just with the grade school depiction of Rizal but an in-depth look at the way the man lived and thought. There is a high degree of deduction involved as to what motivated Rizal to do this and that. There is a particular emphasis on the "historical" Rizal, the one who had a temper, picked fights with his fellow heroes and had a girl in every port or city he went to. We intentionally demystify the "mythical" Rizal, not to take him down from his perch but to both gain a better appreciation of the person - that despite his legend, he was, refreshingly, human, too, and therefore it is possible to achieve what he did - and to further teach the Atenean to not only place things in their proper context but also to question our beliefs to see which are worthy and which are junk.
That's what the Filipino public needs now, I think. We question, yes, but stop when confronted with what I call the "Sedmak Conundrum." We are faced with the prospect of accepting Truths we don't want suffer the Consequences for, and thus we cease questioning. We are happy at this level of inquiry.
But if we don't question further, actually demand more from our paragons when they go against the values and ideals they had the gall to represent, we might just end up replacing one tyrant for another. Enlightened, perhaps, even benevolent, but democracies abhors tyrants.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Traditionally, we Pinoys have taken to elections with a passion and interest reserved only for fiestas. We may bitch and gripe about our elected officials but the same people would cheer and wave and shake the hands of any candidate that would pass by, especially the national ones. Well, okay, unless they really despised the candidate, but I haven't seen nor heard of one being chased out of anywhere.
Ever since actively participating in political action when I joined the LP in October 2000 - about a week or so before the start of Erap's juetengate - I've seen quite my share of electoral exercises. So far, the two I've been in were quite... memorable. 2004 was still the best since we planned for that as early as the summer of 2003 and came out as the biggest victor. It was sweet vindication to all we've worked for during what I call the "Liberal Family" era of the LP. Which is, thanks to Drilon and friends, all gone now.
Somehow, I don't feel the elections this time around. Maybe because of a decidedly muted campaign; walls and gates are relatively pristine this time around, with COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos being quite insistent that candidates follow the rules on the posting of campaign posters. And since most of my house time has been done in the virtual worlds of the two MMORPGs I play, I've seen blessed little of the political and campaign ads.
I do remember being at the Team Unity kick off at Manila, the one held at Tamayo's (that place behind the Cathedral in Intramuros), and I remember quite well what were my thoughts during that time but I'll keep those to myself for now.
Will I be exercising my right to vote this time around? I think so. I'm an officer in a political party and its youth wing; it would be rather contrary for someone in my position not to vote, especially since I've been bugging the kids to cast their ballots on May 14. If taxes give one the right to complain about government service, then the vote allows a citizen of the Republic to bitch at government when it screws up if you voted for the one who won, or to make your point if you voted for someone else.
At the very least, votes are statements; even a losing candidate can make the Powers-That-Be sit up and take notice given a certain level of performance in the polls.
What about allegations that the vote doesn't matter anymore since its the Canvassers who've been bought? Then all the more one should exercise suffrage. A blank ballot is a recipe for disaster, as evil people will just use your unused vote to justify their cheating. If you cast your vote, and feel - or better, know - that enough of you voted the same, yet your candidate lost, then you have a legitimate reason to complain.
Also, Ping Lacson had it right: the person who cannot protect his vote has no right to complain about cheating. If the Filipino people want their vote to count, then perhaps its time to go out and not just vote but help in protecting the ballot by volunteering for electoral watchdogs. In fact, we in KALIPI have been encouraging young people to do so. I miss that, actually: I remember my first - and, it seems, my last - NAMFREL in 1998. It was one of the coolest things I ever did and I wish I could do so again but membership in the LP precludes being part of NAMFREL again, other than getting an ID as a "Party Watcher" to NAMFREL.
As for candidates... So far, my Senatorial list includes Kiko Pangilinan (my reasons mentioned in an earlier post), Chiz Escudero and Mike Defensor.
I'm voting for Chiz because of the consistency in his being Opposition, and my impression that this is one person that you can still reason with. At the very least, Chiz could claim to having stuck to his guns through it all, and engaged us not in a contest of vitriol and mudslinging but in how politics should be fought: through a debate on issues and the issue. If there would be one person leading the Opposition in the Senate, it should be this guy.
Mike gets my vote because, despite his uber-tarnished image with the public, I've known the man differently. Yes, he may have been one of the staunchest defenders of that little girl who sits in the Palace, but that's also one of the things you have to give him credit for. I've interviewed him several times both for Liberal Philippines and The Liberal, and he's come across as someone who, contrary to the public perception, knows what's he's doing in the position he's in. He had his "moments", yes, but I think if I was going to add to the Administration's numbers in the Senate, I'd rather it be someone I know.
Hm. I still have nine slots to fill. I could just write a long line on the remaining slots (so as to prevent the evil people from tampering with my ballot), but that's a waste of a good vote. So who else can I put in?
In our discussions here at the HQ over who to vote for, the names of Ed Angara and Tessie Aquino Oreta have been bandied about, both because, despite their notoriety, have been consistent performers in past Senates. I think I can be convinced to put Angara's name on my ballot, but the image of TAO dancing after our "defeat" during the 2001 impeachment is somehow still fresh on my mind.
Manny Villar... Maybe. So far, he's performed too. And say what you will of that little act of his when he was Speaker of the House - the now-legendary "Prayer-Transmission" - but that required guts, timing, and a certain level of chutzpah to pull off. Yes, I know he wants to win big this time so he can make a case for running for President in 2010, but, hey, at least he delivers. And he takes a stand. Heh. Maybe I'll vote for Villar if only to twit someone who I once admired but now finds rather unworthy of the highest office of the land simply because he lacks the balls to make a stand on very important issues, playing safe so as not to alienate anyone in his quest for the Presidency.
I don't like it when my leaders play safe. I want vision. I want someone who can capture my imagination and show me a path to take, the kind who'll tell you, "See that mountain, young man? If we can't get around it, we'll go THROUGH it!" and by God I'll be one of the first to take pickaxe to mountainside to help us get through that mountain.
Too bad for that politico I once admired; he seemed so much like a man of vision when I first saw him, but years of working with him and observing him... so sad.
Tito Sotto? Maybe. I remember when he was being touted as VP-material. His sudden fall was one good example of a black propaganda PR campaign that somehow clicked, given the resources at Sotto's disposal and the generally-good image that had been spun for him.
I know, though, who I won't be voting for:
Noynoy Aquino is one. If I don't like it when my leaders lack vision, then I abhor those who are hypocrites. I saw his add about fighting for democracy and I shouted at the TV, "democracy? you have the gall to talk about democracy when you denied the Party that?" Hah. He was it that gave out that memorandum, post-7/8/05 that justified the Drilon-led usurpation of the LP's democratic processes. That would have been fine, if he had insisted to Drilon that, as per his memo, the NECO should have been convened post haste so the Party's leaders can vote on ratifying the "stand" they made that July 8 afternoon.
But no: Noynoy was one of the most avid supporters of the suppression of dissent and democracy in the LP. He even tried, several times, to win over the young leaders who were heavily critical of the July 8 incident and were moving to pressure the leadership to convene the NECO.
Even worse, he's now with the Erap camp. ERAP! Good God and a Half! Did you know that the reason for the rift between Noynoy and Mayor Atienza was the latter's support of Erap during what would lead to the May 1 Mayhem? I even heard of those heated discussions where Noynoy and Chito took LA to task for this support of Erap. Yet look at him now. Sheesh. He was even all smiles when Erap raised their hands during that trip to Taytay.
In an era of shifting political loyalties and principles, consistency is the one thing that should determine whether a leader is true to his or her word or is just wagging your tail. Which is why Kiko and Chiz and Mike D rank high in my list. Especially Kiko. That took a LOT of courage to go independent, rather than compromise his position and principles and I salute Kiko for what he's done.
But Noynoy? *shudder*
Has he - and his family - forgotten that Erap was one of the people that defied Cory at the start of the New Order after the First People Power?
And in that same vein I am not voting for Alan Cayetano and Loren Legarda.
Cayetano is such a... jerk. Nothing else describes him best. Ok, maybe retard. If corruption is the issue, why the (censored) hell is he in the Erap camp? Tactical alliance? Sheesh. And is he not even fazed by the fact that, in case he wins - and God forbid he does - he'll be sharing the same chamber with sister Pia? Does he not find anything wrong with that? Does the 1987 Constitution even ring a bell to him? For somebody who insists on the law, he sure is ready to break them.
Legarda is the quintessential turncoat. If I remember TAO's "Dancing Queen" routine back in '01, then I remember Loren's little "Crying Lady" trick. And now she's one of Erap's leading supporters. Hah. There was this adage of old that Tigers don't change their spots. Well, it appears it doesn't hold with political animals like the ones we have here in the Philippines.
And did you know that one of the biggest unofficial bets in the Senate was on the longest serving staffer of Legarda? Watch where you put your celfone too, when the good former Senator throws a tantrum.
I will also most definitely not vote for Trillianes. The guy's a (censored) rebel, for God's sake! I saw how some people in civil society said they'll vote for him and I wanted to scream, good God, people, are we teaching our children now that its okay to use armed force to express one's grievances to the President? The man led in taking hostage several dozen people - many of them expats - and threatening to blow up a landmark of the financial district! It wasn't even a rebellion but an act of banditry, nay, terrorism! Soldiers who engage in a coup do so in military maneuvers, fighting loyalist cadres in street battles as part of a revolt. Trillianes and company went to Oakwood and HELD PEOPLE HOSTAGE. That's no different from any group who took over an airliner demanding things. He should be meted out capital punishment, not given a seat in the Senate! He has grievances? Then he should have aired them out to his commanders! He's in the military, Light's Sake, and the military is not a democracy. If he couldn't get to air his concerns there, then he should have left and then gave presscons on the state of the military today, not take over a residential area in the heart of Makati.
If these people in civil society who are supporting Trillianes take the time to think and not let their hate for Gloria cloud their judgement, then perhaps they'd remember that such acts remove any legitimacy to one's grievances. The Philippines is a democracy; anyone who believes otherwise is a Communist rebel. It may not be a perfect democracy - far from it - but it still is because, at the end of the day, you can tell the Supreme Court that the 1987 Consti says so. And in a democracy, there are avenues to airing grievances against government. Taking over a residential facility and threatening to blow it up is not one of these avenues. That is terrorism. Regardless of your grievances, you have broken the law and you must be made to answer for that.
There. Hopefully I'll get to complete even at least half of the 12 slots. Maybe some of the independents will look promising.
But this has got to be the shallowest elections I have seen. If this is the best both camps have to show, then we as Citizens of the Republic of the Philippines should seriously start asking really, really hard questions to our leaders as to what the hell is going on.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
he best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
-- from Second Coming, William Butler Yeats
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
It's like I always said: leaders who have the gall to take the moral high ground should not be afraid to also take the hard route usually associated with that choice. And when a leader puts his money where his mouth is, then that person deserves the title. And one's respect.
I remember seeing Sen. Pangilinan being interviewed over his decision to not attend "Genuine Opposition" (side note: so there's an opposition that's not Genuine?) campaign sorties. In essence, what Sen. Kiko was saying was that he cannot, in good conscience, join the ticket led by a man he helped oust in 2001, in the same way that he won't join the lineup formed by the woman whose he asked be resigned or removed from the presidency in 2005.
Now this is what it means to stand for something. This is consistency. In my post-July 8 gestalt, the true measure of a leader can be found in just how consistent he or she is with regard to positions. Basically, a leader says one thing, it has to reflect in all his or her decisions and actions. For example, you can't demand for the ouster of someone based on immorality while having your hands raised by another who was the very embodiment of the same. Well, at least of ammorality, but if Noynoy seeks to use the Moral High Ground as basis for election to higher office, indeed for the legitimacy of his faction of the LP... then standing, all smiles, hand raised, with Erap somehow just doesn't cut a dashing figure of the Hero in my books.
Sen. Kiko, by his decision to tough it out as an independent, has shown his true caliber. Perhaps its a well calculated move. Maybe he isn't as disadvantaged as he appears, since he has a not-so-secret weapon in wife Sharon and daughter KC. It may even be a fit of pique at not being a prime choice for a slot in the so-called GO.
But whatever the reasons, Sen. Kiko told the public of his decision and, IMHO, its the right one. That way, none of his principles are compromised, no excuses need to be made as to why "Mr. Noted" is now with the man whose friend he supposedly helped keep from the presidency.
And that's why he has my vote this May.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
I was reading through details of the six-party talks on the (latest) North Korea issue, and if there was a better contemporary example to the efficacy of dialogue and diplomacy over knee-jerk options like bombing an offending country to the Stone Age, then this is it.
When the issue of NoKor beginning something like a nuke weapon research program started to filter into the world's attention, it understandably caused quite a concern. This was, after all, the... most unpredictable nation in the world, bar none, with a leader who is probably as unpredictable as his government's image (or more so). Saying North Korea was starting to make nuclear weapons was like handing the Football - the case that activates the American Nuclear Arsenal - to a psychotic pre-pubescent neanderthal on aggressor drugs.
If that was me, my first reaction would probably have been to mobilize an insane amount of troops and weaponry right on NoKor's doorstep as a not-so-subtle and over sized version of the policeman's "drop your weapon" threat. If NoKor answered this with a "bring it on!", then by all means I would not have hesitated to do Korean War Round 2 (or is it three already?). After making sure my back and flanks were well-protected, of course.
But that's me. I was never the negotiator of my generation's Guardians, after all. I was their analyst, their strategist, their protector. The center of the shield, the tip of the spear, the leading edge of the sword. My Training regarding threats was to not just eliminate them but also to prevent their being able to effectively threaten me or the one's I protect. This is premised on the principle that not all parties in a conflict think alike, and that there will be parties who will never see the situation the way you, in your liberal, democratic, republican and civilized upbringing would.
But yes, this is a big victory for the negotiators, for those who were told they were talking with the impossible. Students learning the intricate and delicate art of negotiation and conflict resolution should read up on how this was done.
Its also important to note, amidst all the criticism from the American Left and Right, that the success of this round of the talks hinged mostly on the principle of compromise. I have always maintained that negotiations can never happen, or be fruitful if they do occur, so long as at least one party in the talks is taking a hardline stance. Without sacrificing the basic premise of your side's position, one must allow room for maneuver. There must be concessions from all sides. There must be that general feeling of openness to resolving a conflict through dialogue and negotiation, and this cannot exist so long as one party says, "no: my way or the highway."
At the very least, this should be a hats-off to Christopher Hill, Washington's envoy to the North Koreans. I like that little anecdote attributed to him that may have provided the important breakthrough: a Korean proverb about filling a cup with too much liquid that it drains out, leaving nothing. I wonder where I can find the exact wording of that one? It seemed to have doused cold water - haha, pun not intended - on Pyongyang's greed, trying to act more like a hostage-taker demanding terms than a sovereign state dealing with its peers.
I have to hand it to the almost inhuman - it IS Pyongyang we're talking about here, after all - patience and perseverance of Hill and US SecState Condi Rice. In my new gestalt, the first thing I determine is whether or not a course of action will be effective in the persecution of a goal. If in my analysis it shows up that further action will lead nowhere but to an escalation that drains resources for no justifiable gain, then its time to cut one's losses and regroup. Or abandon the field entirely. That Hill and Rice persevered so far, despite the known preferences of their boss in the White House, should at least reap praises.
Let's just hope this goes on to a happy ending. For although a warrior's best tool is always himself as a weapon, a real warrior, a Guardian, knows that the drawing of the blade is in itself a failure because you were forced to take the final recourse. In its most ancient traditions, a drawn blade was never sheathed without shedding blood, for to draw it on another was a clear sign of serious and deadly intent.
This way, warriors need not draw the blade once again. The Sheath still holds steel, and blood does not needlessly stain the ground again.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
I mean, look at the so-called United Opposition. Even before filing for candidacy begins, the group was plagued by defections of some very high ranking members. As in, "inner circle" kind of members. I'm talking about the very public exits of Tito Sotto, Tessie Aquino and Kit Tatad.
In the Tatad's case, not only was it very public, but very vocal as well: the man practically paid for two full pages in the Philippine Daily Inquirer so his letter to Erap would be printed in its full, unedited glory.
Talk about your "Oh-M-Gee" situations...
My paranoia (Mentat Training can sometimes take the fun out of relishing little victories like this) is telling me its quite possible we're all being taken for a ride here; I mean, look at this: Sotto, Tessie and Tatad? Enrile bolting the Opposition camp is something that totally went by everybody - I mean, duh, right? - but Tatad?
Well, that's my paranoia talking. I still remember the battles we fought against those three, and the way Aquino-Oreta danced after the Second Envelope incident in 2001. I know that politics, especially here in the Philippines is more concerned with "permanent interests" than standing one's grounds on the basis of principles and ideals, but, really, there are just some things you do not do. How can anyone who fought on the side of Truth and all that's decent in 2001 even think about standing besides the likes of Dancing Queen herself?
Apparently, the damage Gloriagate has done to the already-damaged political culture of the country is far, far, greater than even my worst nightmares. Musical chairs is a common factor of Philippine politics, but the realignments happening on the eve of the 2007 elections just... boogles the mind. It also makes whatever is left of my idealism want to drink itself to death.
UNO has always been more an alliance of political interests rather than a union of ideals and alternative programs. Anybody who still thinks UNO was about the poor and all that should have his or her head examined. The 2007 version of UNO is no different than the one we defeated in 2004, although I'd have to say, Chiz Escudero aside, it really has dredged the bottom of crassness and personal political agendas this time.
Oh, yes, I'm voting for Chiz; if that expensive and worthless institution that's the Senate should continue, then perhaps we should elect there someone with sense. And sensibility. Escudero might be an oppositionist, but at least he's decent about it. And consistent. Which is more than I can say about the Drilon cabal of the LP.
I mean, just look at it: NOYNOY AQUINO IN THE UNO?! What the hell, right?
I'd have understood if Drilon's cabal decided to go it on their own; they had this big production a couple of days ago where they announced their so-called lineup for the Senatorial elections. That's ok, even better, if truth be told. They've been harping for some time now about some so-called "Third Force" and it would seem they're quite ready to put their money where their mouth is. Heck, who knows, since a good portion of the public still thinks they're "good guys" (ah, my misguided public... if only I could show you the Truth about your so-called heroes, how they lie, how they suppress and twist the Truth for their own personal agendas and the Republic be damned...), then perhaps some of them could have made a good showing at the polls this May.
But, no... they had to insist - assuming Kit Tatad's open letter is true - that Noynoy be included in the UNO lineup.
UNO. Erap's group. The group we fought from 2000 - 2001. The group Abad and Pangilinan stymied during the canvassing of votes back in 2004. Odd though, when you think about it: a year after the canvassing, the same people that defended Gloria's votes were the ones who tried to oust her. If they were so sure one year later that she cheated, why were they so... ardent in keeping the opposition from doing a thorough check of the votes?
Is their hate for Gloria so great that ideals truly mean nothing to them anymore?
And who was it that convinced Gloria to admit to making a call to Garci, despite her adviser's recommendations? "Do a Clinton", I think the selling point was to poor little Glo. And she did because, at the end of it all, she trusted the people who were egging her on to say "I'm sorry" for something virtually all politicians did anyway. She thought they were telling her the right thing to do to defuse the crisis, that these people, the "civil society" contingent of her Cabinet, being morally upright members of society (or so it seems at the time), were telling her its okay to do this. Instead, she got more flak, and I didn't see any of her CivSoc Cabinet members try to back her up after. Which was why she angrily told the "civil society" contingent of her Cabinet that she did what they wanted and she got more flak for it. You have to understand the little girl's context at that moment. Information sources tell us that, political shark that she is, Glo seemed to genuinely trust her CivSoc ministers. Which was why decades of political instinct was thrown out of the window by her, on their say-so, because she thought they could do no wrong by her.
And then... they tried to oust her.
Remember that these people plunged the country - not once, but twice! - nearly into civil war on the basis of morality and decency. These people said they were the paragons; you couldn't claim otherwise, and demand that your boss, the President, resign her office. I mean, they were her alter egos, and they practically were the vanguard of her campaign team in 2004. They resigned on the basis of what was still essentially heresay and some weird thing about their boss being more concerned with survival than serving the country. Duh. Of course Gloria was trying to survive; this country does not have a nice track record with how it deals with ousted presidents. The little girl was facing the very real possibility of getting lynched, and they weren't helping provide the security she needed to, as they wanted, do her work.
They were essentially her shitteno, her inner circle of advisers. If massive cheating did happen in 2004, then they were in on it. At the very least, they never asked the hard questions; heck, they even stymied attempts at this, if the canvassing of 2004 was any indication.
And now they join UNO. Amazing.
About a week or two ago, Billy Esposo came out with a column in the Philippine Star that was essentially praising the Drilon Wing. The "true" LP, he called them. Of course Mr. Esposo either got his facts wrong or deliberately didn't even check on what happened. He's a demagogue, a PR man. A true journalist would have couched attacks against his true target - the President - with facts.
What was truly amazing was his assertion that this Drilon Wing of the LP - along with poor, I-wonder-where-his-common-sense-went Manny Villar's Nacionalistas - represented the so-called (now officially dead) Third Force that would one-up Gloria and Erap. This was the true alternative to evil, dictatorial little Glo and corrupt lord-of-all-gambling-lords Erap.
I wonder how Esposo felt when the news came out that Noynoy Aquino was in the UNO slate?
Oh yes, the carnival has begun. And our side has yet to show its set of actors in this sordid little drama. So far, all we know is Mike (Defensor) is the only sure runner for the Senate. A contact even told me that he has a pol-ad out already and that it sucked. I haven't seen it, so I can't judge it.
I wish his media handlers would focus on the more worthwhile aspects of Sec. Mike. I' ve interviewed the guy and he's charming, witty, warm and smart. He's the perfect foil to Chiz, for God's sake. They should play up those qualities of him, rather than do a, uh, cheesy packaging of him designed to supposedly wow the masses.
Newsflash, publicists: the Masses are different now.
Still, its a carnival. And the days have been rather boring of late. Filipinos love elections, after all, if for no other reason that its certainly good entertainment. Never a dull moment during elections. And I bet this one will be anything but dull.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
No, this isn't about the LP thing; I am still so dissed at it that I still can't properly write about it. This is about a little debate that occurred between two of my kada during our Christmas get-together.
Consider the protagonists: one is a newly-grad law student who just took the bar. Of all my kada, she's perhaps the most "Establishment" of us all, even more so than me. The other kada is the one who had three girlfriends all at the same time, all the while finding nothing wrong in it while remaining as one of Youth for Christ's organizers. In a very real sense, this friend of mine could be described as... amoral.
Anyway: the debate was sparked by his, uh, business practices. Jaq (the law student kada) and I (initially) were trying to convince him to be more, ah... legal with the way he conducts his business. Mostly, Jaq and I were trying to convince him to register his biz with the appropriate agencies, since this was the lawful thing to do (and I wonder why in the Alignment Test of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons I still rated as Lawful Good?).
Francis (my other kada, the one we were debating with) initially parried our points. But as Jaq (now solo debating with Francis by this time since I already came to the conclusion that he was too set in his ways to be reasoned with) engaged him deeper and longer, he began to... deflect the arguments about what the Republic deserves with stuff like he's being nationalistic with using Filipino talent in his biz, or that none of his income goes abroad unlike the megacorps who are based here, or that despite there being no contracts between him and his financial backers, he gives them their dues and in time, and others besides.
Like I said above, I stopped debating with Francis because I realized - and also because I've been with this guy at least since second year high school - he won't be convinced by any of our arguments. He implied he's earning much from his biz; like he said, why would he allow government to cut into his substantial bottom line when it would most likely go to the pockets of corrupt officials? Jaq was countering this with its the salaried citizens that bear the brunt of tax-evading businessmen like him.
In one sense, I could understand where Francis was coming from. Too much corruption discourages business. Corruption is like a leech that sucks away at the lifeblood of enterprise, and most of the time its the small ones, the vulnerable ones, that are subjected to the greed of evil public officials because small businesses lack the resources to defend themselves against this predation.
I remember that time I received my first taxable paycheck. You'd be surprised how... elated I was. Personally, I view the Income Tax as one of the proofs that one is an adult, since only full adults supposedly earn enough money, or keep a job, that necessitates taxing. But even more than that, aside from it being my civic duty as a Citizen of the Republic of the
People who don't pay taxes have absolutely no right to complain, in my book. Especially if they are earning a decent amount from working here or operating a business locally.
But I think what really got me concerned was the fact that people, like Francis, are ready to twist the law, or even discard it entirely, just to get what they want and then justify it. It’s so irksome in that people like Francis seem to be of the opinion that they are entitled to the benefits of a liberal democratic republic with a free market system while sidestepping the responsibilities attendant to being a citizen of that republic.
It’s not even a question of whether your money does go to the proper upkeep of your nation or it lines the pockets of your congressman. That’s not the point in the system of taxation that runs a modern country. When Conrado de Quiros called on people to withhold their taxes in order to keep their money away from Gloria’s government, I thought that this was such an irresponsible thing to do. Taxes run this nation. If people don’t pay their taxes, the country will cease functioning.
Dealing with corruption, that is preventing your public officials from dipping their grubby hands into the wealth of the nation to further theirs, is not a function of taxation. Taxation deals with ensuring a nation has enough to function, and maybe a little bit more to grow. Preventing greedy people from misusing one’s taxes is part of another system, the one where a citizen is an active stakeholder and demands from his or her public official that these resources be spent properly and effectively.
You can’t foil corruption by withholding your taxes. That way leads to even greater corruption as government begins to lack the resources it needs to function, and people in the bureaucracy begin to be subjected to more… external pressures. If more businessmen, or the highest-salaried people in this country, paid the proper taxes – or, rather PAID their taxes – then maybe government would at least have funds to give its employees decent-enough salaries so they won’t stoop down to accepting bribes just to make ends meet (heck, perhaps teachers wouldn’t have to sell stuff to their students and focus more on teaching).
True, government sorely needs to implement a more effective tax-enforcement scheme. But how come, year after year, taxation is low? Because, whether through the magic of their elite accountants and/or “gifts” to well–placed people in the bureaucracy, people who earn more pay less (or none at all).
See, that’s what’s wrong with the Filipino: instead of demanding what is our right as taxpayers, as citizens, we instead spit on the law. Is it the law, the system, that is the problem in the first place? No. It’s the PEOPLE. The Law, and the systems that determine its operation, are there. It’s people who find ways to either subvert those systems, or disregard them utterly.
Heck, even Supreme Court Justices do it. Look at that TRO on the LP and the COMELEC. Imagine, Drilon’s Wing of Evil, Lying and Arrogant People Who Claim They’re Liberals but in Truth are Communists in Disguise got a TRO when the Supreme Court was in recess and the Chief Justice had just arrived from abroad? Amazing. And all it took was one Cory Aquino to make the Justices sidestep the SC’s own rules, the CJ to not follow procedure, and for democracy to be stifled.
And they have the gall to say they are doing this to keep external factors from influencing an internal party matter? Sheesh. The lie is so slick it would put a frictionless surface to shame.
Was it a fault of the system? Nope. It was people. People with the resources to pervert the system and the lack of morality to do anything just to get what they want.
So long as Filipinos think this way – the whole situation is dirty, anyway, so I will play dirty – then it will be really difficult to change this country